Attachment 2 - Letter from Thomson Geer · 132007.12.8

                                                                                                                                6



         (c)       The reduction in the height of a building from 13 levels to 7, with a resulting reduction in
                   the number of residential units from 57, containing 97 bedrooms, to 52 containing 81
                   bedrooms.7

6.8      Most recently, the Court found that the proposed changes to a large mixed use development in
         Noosa were too great and would result in a substantially different development. The Court
         described the changes as: 8

          The principal changes to the Locality Plan proposed by the appellant include a reduction in the
          number of precincts from 4 to 2 with the amalgamation of some development areas and the
          removal of others. Essentially, precinct 1 is reduced in size and intensity, precinct 2 is deleted,
          precinct 3 is reduced in size and intensity and renamed precinct 2 and precinct 4 is also deleted.
          The amount of attached housing has been reduced, the lot sizes for detached housing have
          increased, and the proposed neighbourhood centre in precinct 1 is different. Retirement and
          special needs housing is no longer proposed. There has been a significant reduction in the
          proposed density, overall a maximum of 1,009 attached and detached dwellings is replaced by
          251 dwelling units, a reduction of over 75%. Attached dwellings have been reduced from 407 to
          40, a reduction of over 90%. There have also been considerable changes to the proposed
          access to the development with the deletion of a roundabout on Walter Hay Drive, at which
          location there will now be only left in and left out traffic movements. Changes to the internal road
          linkages, which are also proposed by the appellant, will result in less direct access to most of the
          proposed development and the loss of the opportunity for public transport services to access
          precinct 1.

6.9      With respect to changes that could be categorised as 'significant' in a numerical sense, the Court
         has stressed that a simple review of the numerical parameters of a development is not the only
         relevant consideration with respect to what constitutes a "substantially different development". In
         particular, the Court has stated: 9

          In this case, the change to the scale and bulk of the proposal is significant in a numerical
          sense, albeit that the height and general appearance of the development does not
          markedly change. In other contexts, a change of this magnitude may be regarded as
          dramatic and indeed sufficient so to, in the circumstances of a particular case, to result in a
          substantially different development. In this case, however, when one has regard to the
          context, including the size of the subject land and its separation from sensitive land uses,
          the impact of the increase in scale and bulk is not significant.

7        Analysis of Proposed Changes

7.1      Having regard to a comparison of the current development approval and the proposal plans,
         together with the analysis of the changes set out in the town planning report, in our view the
         proposed changes in this case fall within the ambit of changes that would not be classed as a
         "substantially different development".

7.2      With respect to the matters listed in Schedule 1, Point 4 of the DA Rules, it is clear that
         subparagraphs (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) cannot reasonably be said to be relevant to the
         proposed changes that are addressed in this letter. That leaves only subparagraphs (a) and (c)
         for further consideration, being:

               (a) involves a new use; or

               (c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or

7.3      With respect to these matters, we note the following:

6 Minamarc Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QPEC 146.
7 Indigo (Palm Beach) Land Owner Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Ors [2011] QPEC 27.
8 Northbrook Corporation Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council & Ors [2015] QPEC 24.
9 Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Gold Coast City Council [2014] QPEC 63
at page 3.




                                                                                                                  Legal/49114049_1